The guy was definitely being sarcastic. Anyway, yes the term 'theory' is commonly misunderstood as it relates to science. In this context, it is often badly misused, even by people who mean well. There should be an emphasis on the following right away: evolution is not a theory in and of itself. The scientific theory that makes evolution work is thought to be natural selection. That's the theory. Evolution is just a natural process.

The guy was definitely being sarcastic. Anyway, yes the term 'theory' is commonly misunderstood as it relates to science. In this context, it is often badly misused, even by people who mean well. There should be an emphasis on the following right away: evolution is not a theory in and of itself. The scientific theory that makes evolution work is thought to be natural selection. That's the theory. Evolution is just a natural process.

"The misconception is that a theory is something shaky and might at any time be disproven. In biology that is not true. Evolution as a theory is not on shaky ground at all."

There are two kinds of Evolutional theories... one is fact and one is still a theory... The one that is fact, is something like you're eye evolving to create a better eye... look it up, The other and more common concept is we evolved from an Ape species... But I ask you this... if we didn't evolve, why do we have a useless tail bone? Or that place in our intestines that we can't use? It's that thing that animals use to digest raw foods... ours have shrunk... and yep this proves evolution is right... only a delusional and ignorant fool would say otherwise... But hey, Don't believe me, believe your body...

"The misconception is that a theory is something shaky and might at any time be disproven. In biology that is not true. Evolution as a theory is not on shaky ground at all."

There are two kinds of Evolutional theories... one is fact and one is still a theory... The one that is fact, is something like you're eye evolving to create a better eye... look it up, The other and more common concept is we evolved from an Ape species... But I ask you this... if we didn't evolve, why do we have a useless tail bone? Or that place in our intestines that we can't use? It's that thing that animals use to digest raw foods... ours have shrunk... and yep this proves evolution is right... only a delusional and ignorant fool would say otherwise... But hey, Don't believe me, believe your body...

I second exton. There is only one theory of evolution. The eye is an example of how certian aspects of life evolved into more complex beings. Small changes over time to better the species for survival. "Survival of the fittest". It is the same theory as branching off from a species similar to todays apes.

To be clear, we did not evolve from apes in a literal sense. We come from a common ancester similar to todays apes. They are our closest living relatives. We are all part of a class of species called primates. It is a branch off the evolutionary tree.

Oh my, did anyone read what I said above? Evolution is not a theory; it is a natural process. Furthermore, there are actually several theories that describe the process of evolution, primary among them natural selection and punctuated equilibrium (the first more so than the last).

No it isn't. It is a natural process, kind of like erosion or waves hitting the beach, only much more complex. Surely you wouldn't call erosion a "scientific theory," or maybe I'm missing something. I'll quote from Wikipedia: "Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations." Evolution is just something that happens in nature. How it happens, why it happens, those are issues that are addressed by scientific theories like natural selection and punctuated equilibrium, among others.

No it isn't. It is a natural process, kind of like erosion or waves hitting the beach, only much more complex. ...Evolution is just something that happens in nature. How it happens, why it happens, those are issues that are addressed by scientific theories like natural selection and punctuated equilibrium, among others.

You can say the same of anything.

Example:
"Natural selection is a natural process. It's just something that happens in nature."

Science is all about natural processes. The claim that "evolution is a natural process" is part of the theory of evolution.

No it isn't. It is a natural process, kind of like erosion or waves hitting the beach, only much more complex. ...Evolution is just something that happens in nature. How it happens, why it happens, those are issues that are addressed by scientific theories like natural selection and punctuated equilibrium, among others.

You can say the same of anything.

Example:
"Natural selection is a natural process. It's just something that happens in nature."

Science is all about natural processes. The claim that "evolution is a natural process" is part of the theory of evolution.

To further that, You can say the same thing about gravity. But gravity is considered a "law" in scientific terms.
"gravity is a natural process"

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. It is not a guess. Evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous.

What the "theory" part of evolution is applies to what the intermediate steps that any species underwent and to what periods of time it took, not to the fact that evolution occurred and is still occurring.

By the way, the use of the word "theory" when used in scientific connotation does not imply diminished scale of credibility.

In science, a theory must have the ability to explain phenomena and make specific predictions based on observable phenomena. A theory produces sets of hypotheses which in turn can be verified or falsified (i.e., rejected, Popper, 1968). A scientific hypothesis can be investigated by empirical means using the science method.

For example, the Big Bang - cosmologists and astrophysicists postulated a complex theory explaining the origin of the universe known as the “Big Bang Theory.” One of many predictions made by the theory is that the universe would still be permeated by background radiation, constant throughout the universe, a result of residual heat produced by the initial explosion. This hypothesis was subject to empirical investigation and indeed, the background radiation that was predicted was discovered by radiotelescopic observation in the 1960s (Hawking, 1993), and it matches perfectly (i.e., quantitatively) the theoretical predictions as does the constant temperature in "empty" space" which unknown at the time the theory was wrought, turned out to be a true prediction.

There are many accurate theories that never turn into laws, especially in modern science but are probable to the highest degree nonetheless. One of Einstein's most famous theories resulted in the production of the atomic bomb. The bomb obviously worked, but it is still a theory.